Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
The_Man
Footballguy
Jack White
Footballguy
They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought. How can they have any certainty in predictions 50 to 100 years out about El Nino's when they are completely wrong about one which happens within 6 months? A few aspects of the science is on very strong ground, but there is so much unknown about our complex global climate that predictions are meaningless at this point.
The_Man
Footballguy
And yet 2014 was the warmest year on record, even without the presence of an El Nino. The 10 warmest years on record, with one exception, have now occurred since 2000. That exception was the huge spike of temperature in 1998, the presence of which enabled people to say (fallaciously) that "Global warming hasn't gone up in the last 15 years." That argument never made sense, and now makes even less.They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought.
January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
So?And yet 2014 was the warmest year on record, even without the presence of an El Nino. The 10 warmest years on record, with one exception, have now occurred since 2000. That exception was the huge spike of temperature in 1998, the presence of which enabled people to say (fallaciously) that "Global warming hasn't gone up in the last 15 years." That argument never made sense, and now makes even less.They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought.
January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
So?And yet 2014 was the warmest year on record, even without the presence of an El Nino. The 10 warmest years on record, with one exception, have now occurred since 2000. That exception was the huge spike of temperature in 1998, the presence of which enabled people to say (fallaciously) that "Global warming hasn't gone up in the last 15 years." That argument never made sense, and now makes even less.They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought.
January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
Very few people (certainly not me) are arguing that there hasn't been warming over the last century....thus, of course the warmest year on record has occurred in recent years.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Yes, the El Nino isn't as bad this year in California - because of an ongoing 3 year drought with no end in sight. Nothing to see here.So?And yet 2014 was the warmest year on record, even without the presence of an El Nino. The 10 warmest years on record, with one exception, have now occurred since 2000. That exception was the huge spike of temperature in 1998, the presence of which enabled people to say (fallaciously) that "Global warming hasn't gone up in the last 15 years." That argument never made sense, and now makes even less.They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought.
January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
Last edited by a moderator:
And that is unusual?Yes, the El Nino isn't as bad this year in California - because of an ongoing 3 year drought with no end in sight. Nothing to see here.So?And yet 2014 was the warmest year on record, even without the presence of an El Nino. The 10 warmest years on record, with one exception, have now occurred since 2000. That exception was the huge spike of temperature in 1998, the presence of which enabled people to say (fallaciously) that "Global warming hasn't gone up in the last 15 years." That argument never made sense, and now makes even less.They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought.
January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
17seconds
root of all aliai
Do you think the stock market will be higher than it is today in 50-100 years?They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought. How can they have any certainty in predictions 50 to 100 years out about El Nino's when they are completely wrong about one which happens within 6 months? A few aspects of the science is on very strong ground, but there is so much unknown about our complex global climate that predictions are meaningless at this point.
How about in 6mos?
Which prediction is more reliable?
I will take 'Terrible Analogies' for $600, Alex.Do you think the stock market will be higher than it is today in 50-100 years?They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought. How can they have any certainty in predictions 50 to 100 years out about El Nino's when they are completely wrong about one which happens within 6 months? A few aspects of the science is on very strong ground, but there is so much unknown about our complex global climate that predictions are meaningless at this point.
How about in 6mos?
Which prediction is more reliable?
In a number of contexts, long-term trends are more predictable than short-term fluctuations. Stock market indices are a perfectly good example.
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
yeah but dude, it's cold outside.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.htmlOr was it....And yet 2014 was the warmest year on record, even without the presence of an El Nino. The 10 warmest years on record, with one exception, have now occurred since 2000. That exception was the huge spike of temperature in 1998, the presence of which enabled people to say (fallaciously) that "Global warming hasn't gone up in the last 15 years." That argument never made sense, and now makes even less.They want us to believe the science is settled, but yet can not even predict major known climate effects which happens this year. The science keeps telling us things will get rapidly worse, but what we see is milder and less extreme than thought.
January 2015 was the second warmest January ever recorded.
joffer
Footballguy
if only the chairman of the Senate Environmental committee was saying that
That might be true. However since the IPCC is unwilling to attribute natural variations as playing any significant role in the recent increases of the 90's, it would be unscientific to now accept the recent prolonged stagnation to unexplained natural variations. The IPCC sells their confidence level as very high that they have accounted for and understand the variables, so letting them off the hook with this 'short-term' pause in the increase (which is about 17 years now) by racking it up to the unknown is in stark contrast to the bill of goods they are selling us. They are extremely confident (95%) that they know it is mostly caused by human green house gases and believe that natural forcings have only attributed to +/-0.1 degrees since the 1950's. .
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Record breaking crop yields
Nationally, a record average yield of 171 bushels of corn per acre
On the soybean side, the USDA reported a record national average yield of 47.8 bu./acre
Nationally, a record average yield of 171 bushels of corn per acre
On the soybean side, the USDA reported a record national average yield of 47.8 bu./acre
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Jack White
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31872460
The article also mentions as caption to a picture "China is now by far the world's biggest investor in renewable energy, far outstripping the US"Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014 By Helen Briggs Environment Correspondent
The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency.
It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis, the agency said.
Annual global emissions remained at 32 gigatonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year.
But the IEA warned that while the results were "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency".
"This is both a very welcome surprise and a significant one," said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.
An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables”
"It provides much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December: for the first time, greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth."
And IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said while the data was "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency" and "certainly not the time to use this positive news as an excuse to stall further action".
Changing patternsAnalysts attribute the slowdown in emissions to changing patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries.
Prof Corinne Le Quere, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: "An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables.
"Efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere will have played a role, but there are also more random factors such as the weather and the relative price of oil, coal and gas."
The IEA said changing patterns of energy use in China and in OECD countries, including the shift towards more renewable energy, was having the desired effect of decoupling economic growth from greenhouse emissions.
The Paris-based organisation said that in the 40 years it had been collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions, annual emissions had stalled or fallen only three other times, which were all associated with global downturns:
- after the US recession in the early 1980s
- in 1992 after the collapse of the former Soviet Union
- in 2009 during the global financial crisis
Full details of the IEA report will be released in June, ahead of UN negotiations to sign a new international climate change agreement at talks in Paris in December.
Countries are aiming to reach agreement on a deal that will come into force from 2020.
The aim is to limit the increase of the average global surface temperature to no more than 2C (3.6F) compared with pre-industrial levels, to avoid "dangerous" climate change.
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey said the figures showed that green growth is achievable not just for Britain but for the world.
He added: "However we cannot be complacent - we need to dramatically cut emissions, not just stop their growth.
"Getting a new global climate deal is absolutely vital, and the year ahead is going to be of critical importance. "
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
He was? When?
Gr00vus
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Al Gore - That dude is STILL around?
He must be running low on cash - time for another scam.
He must be running low on cash - time for another scam.
The_Man
Footballguy
Now worth more than $200 million according to Bloomberg. He must be desperate.
Good point about all the money there is to be made in talking about climate change, though. 97% of the world's scientists have teamed up to cash in by contriving an environmental crisis. Lucky for us, they are being exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies who in no way stand to financially benefit from selling fossil fuels.
cstu
Footballguy
All of the data points to the world heating up so scientists should agree on that. Rather than debating over whether the world is heating up the debate should be:
- How much is the world heating up and is it a steady rate?
- Can we slowly shift to renewable energy before the problem gets too serious instead of over-reacting to global warming fears?
pantagrapher
Footballguy
What's amazing is that other scientific fields haven't seen the success of this scam and run with it. Imagine how much money could be made if physicists warned that earth's gravity was in danger of shutting off if we don't cough up some research money?
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
it got a lot wrong. it raised awareness, which was good. but overall, it may have done more harm than good.
msommer
Footballguy
The_Man
Footballguy
Don't be surprised when a cabal of geology professors gets together to spin a bunch of lies about fracking's responsibility for contaminated groundwater and increased earthquakes. There's just so much money to be made by inventing stories that run counter to the financial interests of our country's largest corporations!
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Gotta' increase that gubment funding! What better way than to scream
Last edited by a moderator:
Galileo
Footballguy
I don't know about gravity shutting off, but when the earth's magnetic field flips, the whole compass industry will be thrown for a spin.
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.
IPCC Conflict of Interest
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
Political Powerhouse
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.
Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Human Emissions Saved Planet
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.
Patrick Moore (pmoore@allowgoldenricenow.org) was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and spokesman for Allow Golden Rice.
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.
IPCC Conflict of Interest
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
Political Powerhouse
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.
Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Human Emissions Saved Planet
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.
Patrick Moore (pmoore@allowgoldenricenow.org) was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and spokesman for Allow Golden Rice.
He is not in the rice business, he is leading a campaign against the fear-based banning of genetically engineered rice because he believes it will help fight starvation. He is leads up greenpeace and you are accusing him of being in the pockets of the Big Rice Industr?. Is that the best arguement you can make against his article? The knee-jerk response is to attack the skeptic's motives.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Uh, as long as you're giving away stuff for free, why not just give them things that have plenty of beta-carotene naturally like:
Asparagus
Broccoli
Carrots
Chinese Cabbage
Chives
Dandelion Leaves
Grapefruit
Herbs & Spices: Chilli Powder, Oregano, Paprika, Parsley
Kale
Onions
Peas
Peppers
Plums
Pumpkin
Spinach
Squash
Sweet Potatoes
...instead of manufacturing some other thing?
Last edited by a moderator:
